Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Mathai M.V, S/o Verkey – Appellant
Versus
Senior Enforcement Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detention and confiscation of property under cgst act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counterarguments regarding misuse and jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. assessment of service of notice and appeal remedies. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Petitioner seeks for a direction to quash the detention and confiscation order issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act’). Petitioner also seeks for a direction to release his vehicle apart from a declaration that the detention of the vehicle without proper notice violates the provisions of the Constitution.
2. Petitioner is the owner of a truck bearing registration No.KL-31-J-5759. According to the petitioner, on 23.11.2024, the vehicle transported bilge water from INS Vikramaditya from Cochin Wharf possessing all supporting documents including a delivery note issued by authorised personnel of the Indian Navy. While it was parked, the respondents inspected the vehicle on 24.11.2024 and thereafter moved the vehicle from the petitioner’s parking ground to another parking place on 25.11.2024. Later, on 10.01.2025, petitioner claims to have received a detention order under Section 130 of
The petitioner must pursue appellate remedies under the CGST Act rather than a writ petition as the order of confiscation had been served properly.
Notice under Section 130 of the Act must be served in accordance with statutory requirements, failing which confiscation orders are invalid.
The court confirmed that procedural irregularities in tax proceedings are best addressed through appeals, affirming the right to statutory remedies according to the CGST Act.
Detention of goods without an order cannot be deemed legal under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act; procedural correctness must be established before final ruling.
Natural justice requirements necessitate notice to affected parties; however, notice to the driver suffices, supporting reliance on alternative statutory remedies for contesting orders.
Point of law: The extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing for release of the vehicles or goods, during the pendency of the confiscation, can only be sparingly exercised ....
Point of Law - Section 68 of the GST Act which empowers the authority concerned to intercept the vehicle and the goods. The said provision of Section 68 is required to be reproduced.
Provisional release of goods pending confiscation is not authorized under Section 130 of the CGST Act; legal authority for property deprivation must follow specific statutory provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
